EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008CN0241
Case C-241/08: Action brought on 2 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
Case C-241/08: Action brought on 2 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
Case C-241/08: Action brought on 2 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
OJ C 197, 2.8.2008, p. 15–15
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
2.8.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 197/15 |
Action brought on 2 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
(Case C-241/08)
(2008/C 197/25)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)
Defendant: French Republic
Form of order sought
|
— |
Declare that, by not adopting the laws or regulations necessary to transpose correctly Article 6(2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
|
— |
Order the French Republic to bear the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission refers to two grounds for complaint in support of its action, alleging the infringement of Article 6(2) and 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC (‘the Habitats Directive’), respectively.
By its first ground for complaint, the applicant insists on the clarity of Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, which prohibits any deterioration of protected habitats. The introduction into national law of the concept of ‘significant effects’ in order to limit the application of the abovementioned provision to certain human activities, is therefore not justified. Equally, the national legislature may not assert in a peremptory fashion that certain activities such as hunting or fishing ‘do not cause a disturbance’ to ‘Natura 2000’ sites, even if they are carried out for a temporary period or under the national legislation in force.
By its second ground for complaint, the Commission points out first that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site is to be subject to appropriate assessment, except in strictly defined cases. The defendant's legislation is problematic in the light of Community law since it systematically exempts from the procedure for assessment of the environmental implications the works, projects or schemes provided for under ‘Natura 2000’ contracts.
The Commission points out second that, under French law, there are projects which do not require authorisation or administrative approval and which therefore avoid the assessment procedure. Yet some of these projects have significant effects on the ‘Natura 2000’ sites, having regard to the objectives of conservation of species.
According to the Commission, national legislation should finally impose on applicants a clear obligation to provide for alternative solutions where there are negative assessments of the implications of a project or management plan for a site.